• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Great AAR, suprise though that you didn't go innovative. I believe that is an idea group you see far to little. Everything seems to go the way of Ulm no less, so we can continue our cheering! :)

I actually wanted to pick Innovative Ideas, but I wasn't certain. So instead I decided to write it being Ulm's insistence. He wants a military idea group, but is willing to compromise on a less... offensive one.
 
I actually wanted to pick Innovative Ideas, but I wasn't certain. So instead I decided to write it being Ulm's insistence. He wants a military idea group, but is willing to compromise on a less... offensive one.

A good offenseive is the best defense but according to paradox, a good defence is the best offensive.
 
A good offenseive is the best defense but according to paradox, a good defence is the best offensive.

It's a paradox all right.
 
Reffering to the "narrator" as Q is pure genius!
Because it's a Wu Ming reference, isn't it?

ccXuRwc.jpg

?
 
Can I ask a blunt question to any readers who have read the original AAR. How does this AAR compare? I worry about simply relying on the success of the old AAR for this one, and want to make this AAR different yet more of what made the old one popular.
 
I've read all your AAR's, including the Victoria 2 one (I remember podcat's mini-car! A shame we didn't see it in the last panel) and you have still creative and fresh new ideas. Don't be too harsh with yourself!
 
I think that the only aspect you might lack is stability as some AARs didn't make to the end.
Be yourself. Don't be afraid of playing more or less like typical player.
 
I got a serious Dr. No vibe from Ulm and duckie in the first picture. "I don't expect you to talk, Palatinate. I expect you to die!"
 
I got a serious Dr. No vibe from Ulm and duckie in the first picture. "I don't expect you to talk, Palatinate. I expect you to die!"

There are couple of problems with that statement.

First of all, the quote is merely "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die." after asked if he expects Bond to talk.

Secondly, it was not Dr No, but Blofeld who said it.

Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Blofeld: No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!
 
Can I ask a blunt question to any readers who have read the original AAR. How does this AAR compare? I worry about simply relying on the success of the old AAR for this one, and want to make this AAR different yet more of what made the old one popular.

Eu3 was more easier for insane playing and random ambitions, the sandbox is much smaller in Eu4.
I feel that the old AAR was a bit more golden, but I'm sure this one will have its moment to shine sooner or later. :)

There were things happening in Eu3 that defied logic; what made the AAR such a masterpiece in explaining it all.
What a shame that Eu4 is a more advance game. :p
 
Can I ask a blunt question to any readers who have read the original AAR. How does this AAR compare? I worry about simply relying on the success of the old AAR for this one, and want to make this AAR different yet more of what made the old one popular.

Although I admire your drive to keep things fresh, trying to hard could mean that Ulm loses his authenticity. As long as you don't feel you're repeating yourself I think you're doing fine. The old one had a few advantages:
- It was "the original"
- EU3 had a lot of funny mechanics, like the ability to create a impenetrable force field out of pacifistic vassals, EU4 mechanics lack that kind humour. Although you managed to find some in the ideas, so good job.

It's my first time commenting on Ulm btw, but the original Glory for Ulm was actually the first AAR that kept me interested from start to finish, so thank you for that.
 
It's great, i just miss the "flag-life of other countries" and the Ferrara rivalry in the last chapters :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.